MovieChat Forums > Hamlet (2000) Discussion > -Hamlet-'s modern days vs -Romeo+Juliet-...

-Hamlet-'s modern days vs -Romeo+Juliet-'s modern days


It's easy to compare this modernization of HAMLET to Baz's modernization of ROMEO + JULIET, for all the obvious reasons (some reasons being- the original Shakespearean text, the modernization etc.).
Both versions can be praised and criticized for many different motives, yet I wanted to address the fact that the adaptation of HAMLET to this particular scenario just doesn't work.
While ROMEO+JULIET is a tragedy about two people of opposing families that fall in love, and notwithstanding that their tragedy affects not only them, but the families too, HAMLET's modern life adaptation is not as simple.
When you adapt a love such as Romeo and Juliet's, there is no real need to be overly carefull with the specific setting etc. It's a universal and timeless kind of love, that could happen anywhere, and not just in the setting of the original play.
But HAMLET, as well as being a play about personal anguish, melanchoky, lack of strength to act on something, etc., is also a play about how for Kings and Princes, decision making is not the same. When a King makes a wrong choice, the whole kingdom suffers.
Now, when you adapt that from a Danish kingdom to a New York corporation... you just loose half of the play's impact.

I have nothing against this kind of adaptations, I think there are adaptations that try to be more loyal to the original and fail a lot more alarmingly, but to me it's a real shame that this particular issue was not taken into account.

If you agree, disagree, have any more views to share about this modernization, or Shakespeare modernizations in general please speak up, I'd be very interested in hearing more thoughts on this!

reply

Romeo + Juliet was a great interpretation. I especially liked the word play with the guns.

Hamlet 2000 was crap. It was only made because Romeo + Juliet was so popular. They took way too much liberty with the script and the acting (except for Bill Murray and Leiv Shreiber) was hackneyed.

Stupid sexy Flanders

reply

I just rewatched the Hawke film for the first time in several years. It's overall horribly monotone. I agree about Liev Schreiber being an outstanding exception.

If you want to see a modernized version of "Hamlet" that really works, try the Royal Shakespeare Company's production that stars David Tennant and was broadcast on BBC and PBS. I think it can do what this film was trying to do--get young people interested in Shakespeare.


reply

i think the problem was that this film was dry, dull and lacking in any real creativity. the romeo + juliet flick might have wandered from the original play, but it did so in such a way that seemed creative and very interesting.

i mean, changing the setting of a story is easy enough. tossing romeo +juliet into a twisted post modern setting was just brilliant. the firearms, (an automatic rifle with a tacky nameplate reading "LONGSWORD" attached to the wall of a limo, or a small handgun with the word "DAGGER" etched into its barrel and even down to the billboards advertising these weapons, reading something along the lines of 'shoot forth thunder.') its subtle things like this that made romeo + juliet seem like a clever new twist on the play.

but changing the setting alone doesnt work. you have to alter the mood of the story, change the pace of the events to fit the liking of the intended audience.

this film was a horrible disappointment for me. sure, the setting and the props were modified, but it just didn't work. it seemed to me as though a modern backdrop was slipped in and nothing more. and given the dullness of the modern corporate world, there was really nothing to keep my interest. of course, if i could manage to close my eyes for the entire film, i might be rewarded with an enjoyable audio version of the play.

my opinion, if you are going to alter a classic story, you've got to have a few new ideas to add to it. one or two interesting additions (other than the setting), and it might be a good film to watch. in the case of this film, i felt as though it had nothing new or interesting to add to the story, aside from the change of setting. and in my case, the change of setting somehow made this wonderful play seem boring.

then again, there are those that actually like this flick. and that is completely fine with me, after all, if we all had the exact same taste the world would be pretty dull.

reply

I think a major reason "Romeo + Juliet" worked better was that they tried very hard to keep this "Hamlet" in the REAL modern world. There were some nice touches---I liked his movie towards the end. But, overall, it was a bit bland. They didn't have fun with the modernization. "Romeo + Juliet" seemed to be set in a world of heightened reality... very much like "Moulin Rouge!" It wasn't just set in the modern world. It was set in almnost an alternative universe where it made sense the characters would talk the way they did and do the things they did... I especially liked how Juliet's mother tended to walk in fast-motion. It was a great interpretation of the story. It was grandiose and over-the-top with an almost operatic feel to the imagery

reply

I think the modern version of Hamlet works better, because it actually uses its modern setting. While Romeo+Juliet is a visual feast, nothing really changes because of its new setting. In Hamlet however, the director uses the modern world to enhance the play. Almereyda uses modern video technology to highlight the idea of voyeurism that permeates the play. The "to be or not to be" speech focuses on Hamlet's inaction, as he browses through the action in the video store. The poor soul cannot even pick a movie, instead taking home a large stack of videos. Most important about the scene though, are the video tapes themselves. Every video has the same Blockbuster cover, showing why Hamlet cannot make a choice: either path is equal in the end.

A couple of side notes:

I really do enjoy Romeo+Juliet, and Moulin Rouge is one of my favorite films.

I think Bill Murray might be my favorite Polonious ever. His unorthodox acting style in the movie is unsettling, obnoxious, and grating. In other words, he is everything Polonious should be. Even though I prefer Branagh's version to this, Murray's Polonious is leagues better than his counterpart in that version.

reply

I don't htink one works any better than the other in a modern setting in theory.

I think between the two films BAz Luhrman is a great filmmaker and made a visual feast of fun that managed to endear and make audiences care.

Hamlet (2000) just cut out too much in comparison, had too many poor performances (only Liev Schriber stood out as really that good in his role) and was just poorly made. Its pace was sickly fast, yet dull and it just felt empty.

But Hamlet can work in a modern setting. I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company prove so in the '90s with one of the best stage productions I ever saw (and I wonder if the director saw this, because it too ends with b/w "home movies" of hamlet after he dies). But that didn't sacrifice the language and was far more creative than just sayin, "okay Laertes has a gun now, so he doesn't need poision."

Romeo and Juliet was a smart adaptation, Hamlet 2000 was not.

reply

Everyone keeps praising the guns that read "sword" on them. I thought that was the only corny part of the film!

It really isn't so unbelieveable that people would be swinging swords. Yet both Hamlet and Romeo+Juliet refused to include them (Hamlet substituted actual fencing, with sport fencing).


In Japan, guns are totally illegal, and being an island and so introverted, and a hundred other reasons, there really aren't a lot of guns there. But there is organized crime and THE YAKUZA REALLY USE SWORDS. Japanese police don't even carry guns. They usually have batons, and due to the Japanese government's generally standoff attitude to the Yakuza, they usually don't crack down on them, but there are reported occasions where a Japanese cop is swinging a baton against a Yakuza gangster with a sword.

reply

In Japan, guns are totally illegal, and being an island and so introverted, and a hundred other reasons, there really aren't a lot of guns there. But there is organized crime and THE YAKUZA REALLY USE SWORDS. Japanese police don't even carry guns. They usually have batons, and due to the Japanese government's generally standoff attitude to the Yakuza, they usually don't crack down on them, but there are reported occasions where a Japanese cop is swinging a baton against a Yakuza gangster with a sword.


Sure, but Romeo + Juliet was set in a world that was like a cross between the Wild West, LA and Rio. A person swinging a sword wouldn't last long.

A Japanese/Yakuza families adaptation would be nice, though, and maybe could use swords.

reply